Soma Termik Santrali Civarında Yetiştirilen Zeytin (Olea Europaea L.) Çeşitlerinin Yaprak ve Meyve Özellikleri

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, Soma (Manisa) termik santrali civarında yetiştirilen Domat, Gemlik ve Edremit zeytin çeşitlerine ait 1 km ve 10 km mesafelerdeki bahçelerden 2010 ve 2011 yıllarında yaprak ve meyve örnekleri alınmıştır.Önceden belirlenen bahçelerde 4 ağaç işaretlenmiş ve her ağaçtan tesadüfi olarak 25 adet yaprak ve meyve örneği alınmıştır. İlk yıl Domat, Gemlik ve Edremit çeşitlerinin her bir çeşitten ayrı ayrı 400 adet yaprak ve 400 adet meyve örneği alınmıştır. İkinci senede aynı şekilde ve sayıda örnekleme yapılmıştır. İki sene toplamında 1200 adet meyve ve 1200 adet yaprak örneği pomolojik incelenmiştir. Yapılan incelemeler sonucu elde edilen veriler 2010 yılı, 2011 yılı ve her iki yılın ortalaması olarak aynı çeşitler kendi arasında istatistiki olarak T tesitine tabi tutulmuştur. Yaprak ağırlığı (g) olarak Domat çeşidinin 2010 yılı 2011 yılı ortalamaları (p<0.5) önemli bulunurken, iki yılın ortalamaları ise (p<0.001) önemli bulunmuştur. Yaprak eni (mm) bakımından Domat ve Edremit çeşitleri iki yılın ortalamaları olarak (p<.0.5) önemli bulunmuştur. Yaprak indeksi olarak Gemlik çeşidinin 2011 yılı ortalaması (p<.0.5) önemli bulunmuştur. Yaprak sap uzunluğu (mm) bakımından Domat çeşidinin iki yılın ortalaması (p<0.5) önemli olarak tespit edilmiştir. Meyve ağırlığı (g) bakımından Edremit çeşidinin 2010 yılı ve iki yılın ortalaması olarak (p<0.5) önemli olduğu saptanmıştır. Meyve boyu (mm) bakımından Domatçeşininin 2011 yılı ortalaması ve Edremit çeşidinin 2010 yılı ortalaması (p<0.5) olarak önemli saptanırken, Gemlik çeşidinin 2011 yılı ortalaması (p<0.5) ve iki yılın ortalaması (p<.0.1) olarak belirlenmiştir. Meyve eni (mm) Edr<emit çeşidinde 2010 yılı ortalaması (p<0.1) ve iki yılın ortalaması (p<0.5) olarak saptanmıştır. Meyve eti ağırlığı (g) Edremit çeşidinin 2010 yılı ve iki yılın ortalamaları bakımından (p<0.5) önemli bulunmuştur. Meyve eti oranı (%) Gemlik çeşidinin 2010 yılı ortalaması (p<0.5), 2011 ve iki yılın ortalaması (p<0.1) önemli olduğu belirlenmiştir. 100 g giren dane sayısı Domat çeşidinin 2011 yılı ortalaması (p<0.5), Gemlik çeşidi iki yılın ortalaması (p<0.5), Edremit çeşidi 2010 yılı ortalaması (p<0.5) ve iki yılın ortalaması (p<0.1) önemli olarak saptanmıştır. Çekirdek ağırlığı (g) Edremit çeşidinin 2010 yılı ortalaması (p<0.5) önemli saptanmıştır. Çekirdek boyu (mm) Gemlik çeşidinde iki yılın ortalaması (p<0.5) önemli bulunmuştur. Çekirdek eni (mm) Edremit çeşidinde 2010 yılı ortalaması (p<0.1) ve iki yılın ortalaması (p<0.5) önemli bulunuştur.,Inthisstudy, leaf and fruit samples belonging toDomat, Gemlik and Edremit olives cultivate da round Soma (Manisa) thermal plant were taken from the gardens in 1 to 10 kilometers of distances in 2010 and 2011. Four trees were marked in predetermined gardens and 25 pieces of leafand fruit samples were taken frome achtree randomly. First year, 400 pieces of leaf and 400 pieces of fruit samples were taken one by one frome achvariety of Domat, Gemlik and Edremit’s. In these cond year, samplings were carried out in the same way and same number. In the total of two-years, 1200 pieces of fruit and 1200 pieces of leaf samples were examined pomologically. The data obtained as a result of the examinations, as 2010-2011 years and the average of these two years, the same varietiesevaluated statistically by T-test between eachother. While as leaf weights (g), Domat variety averages of 2010 and 2011 years (p<0.5) were regarded as important, these two years’ averages (p<0.001) were considered as significant. In terms of leaf width (mm), the varieties of Domat and Edremit were regarded as important as a mean of two years. As leaf index, 2011 year’s average of Gemlik variety (p<0.5) were significant. In terms of leafs temlength (mm), two-years average of Domat variety (p<0.5) was identified as important. In terms of fruit weight (g) as the average of 2010 year and two years (p<0.5), Edremit variety was foundto be important. In terms of fruit length, the average of Domat variety in 2011year and the average of Edremit variety in 2010 year (p<0.5) were regarded as significant while the average of Gemlik variety in 2011 year as (p<0.5) and the average of two years as (p<0.1) were identified. In terms of the averages in 2010 and two years, fruitflesh weight (g) of Edremit variety (p<0.5) was found to be significant. As fruit flesh rate (%), the average of Gemlik variety in 2010 (p<0.5), the average in 2011 and two years (p<0.1) were determined as important. In terms of grain amount in 100 g, the average of Domat variety in 2011 as (p<0.5), the average of Gemlik variety of two years as (p<0.5), the average of Edremit variety in 2010 as (p<0.5) and the average of two years were determined as important. In terms of core weight (g), the average of Edremit variety in 2011 (p<0.5) was determined as important. As core length (mm), The average of two years of Gemlik variety (p<0.5) was found to be significant. In terms of core width (mm), the average of Edremit variety in 2010 (p<0.1) and the average of two years as (p<0.5) was determined as important.

Inthisstudy, leaf and fruit samples belonging toDomat, Gemlik and Edremit olives cultivate da round Soma (Manisa) thermal plant were taken from the gardens in 1 to 10 kilometers of distances in 2010 and 2011. Four trees were marked in predetermined gardens and 25 pieces of leafand fruit samples were taken frome achtree randomly. First year, 400 pieces of leaf and 400 pieces of fruit samples were taken one by one frome achvariety of Domat, Gemlik and Edremit’s. In these cond year, samplings were carried out in the same way and same number. In the total of two-years, 1200 pieces of fruit and 1200 pieces of leaf samples were examined pomologically. The data obtained as a result of the examinations, as 2010-2011 years and the average of these two years, the same varietiesevaluated statistically by T-test between eachother. While as leaf weights (g), Domat variety averages of 2010 and 2011 years (p<0.5) were regarded as important, these two years’ averages (p<0.001) were considered as significant. In terms of leaf width (mm), the varieties of Domat and Edremit were regarded as important as a mean of two years. As leaf index, 2011 year’s average of Gemlik variety (p<0.5) were significant. In terms of leafs temlength (mm), two-years average of Domat variety (p<0.5) was identified as important. In terms of fruit weight (g) as the average of 2010 year and two years (p<0.5), Edremit variety was foundto be important. In terms of fruit length, the average of Domat variety in 2011year and the average of Edremit variety in 2010 year (p<0.5) were regarded as significant while the average of Gemlik variety in 2011 year as (p<0.5) and the average of two years as (p<0.1) were identified. In terms of the averages in 2010 and two years, fruitflesh weight (g) of Edremit variety (p<0.5) was found to be significant. As fruit flesh rate (%), the average of Gemlik variety in 2010 (p<0.5), the average in 2011 and two years (p<0.1) were determined as important. In terms of grain amount in 100 g, the average of Domat variety in 2011 as (p<0.5), the average of Gemlik variety of two years as (p<0.5), the average of Edremit variety in 2010 as (p<0.5) and the average of two years were determined as important. In terms of core weight (g), the average of Edremit variety in 2011 (p<0.5) was determined as important. As core length (mm), The average of two years of Gemlik variety (p<0.5) was found to be significant. In terms of core width (mm), the average of Edremit variety in 2010 (p<0.1) and the average of two years as (p<0.5) was determined as important.